Lenin On the
Woman Question
by Clara Zetkin
CONTENTS
LENIN ON THE WOMAN QUESTION
International Women’s Movement
Sex and Bourgeois Morality
The “Glass of Water Theory”
Special Organizations for Women
Special Demands for Women
Women in Soviet Russia
Plan for World Women’s Congress
THE TASKS OF THE WORKING WOMEN’S
MOVEMENT IN THE SOVIET REPUBLIC,
by V. I. Lenin
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS 1934
3-28
3
7
11
14
18
21
23
29
LENIN ON THE WOMAN QUESTION
MARRIAGE, SEX AND YOUTH
Comrade Lenin frequently spoke to me about the women’s
question. He attached very great importance to the women’s movement as an essential part, in certain circumstances, as a decisive part
of the mass movement. Social equality for women was, of course, a
principle needing no discussion for Communists. It was in Lenin’s
large study in the Kremlin in the autumn of 1920 that we had our
first long conversation on the subject. Lenin sat at his writing table
which, covered with papers and books, spoke of study and work
without displaying “the disorder of genius.”
International Women’s Movement
“We must create a powerful international women’s
movement, on a clear theoretical basis,” Lenin began the
conversation after having greeted me. “There is no good
practice without Marxist theory, that is clear. The greatest
clarity of principle is necessary for us Communists in this
question. There must be a sharp distinction between ourselves and all other Parties. Unfortunately, our Second
World Congress did not deal with this question. It was
brought forward, but no decision arrived at. The matter is
still in commission, which should draw up a resolution,
theses, directions. Up to the present, however, they haven’t
got very far. You will have to help.”
I was already acquainted with what Lenin said and expressed
my astonishment at the state of affairs. I was filled with enthusiasm
about the work done by Russian women in the revolution and still
being done by them in its defense and further development. And as
for the position and activities of women comrades in the Bolshevik
Party, that seemed to me a model Party. It alone formed an international Communist women’s movement of useful, trained and experienced forces and a historical example.
“That is right, that is all very true and fine,” said Lenin,
with a quiet smile. “In Petrograd, here in Moscow, in other
3
towns and industrial centers the women workers acted
splendidly during the revolution. Without them we should
not have been victorious. Or scarcely so. That is my opinion. How brave they were, how brave they still are! Think
of all the suffering and deprivations they bore. And they are
carrying on because they want freedom, want Communism.
Yes, our proletarian women are excellent class fighters.
They deserve admiration and love. Besides you must remember that even the ladies of the ‘constitutional democracy’ in Petrograd proved more courageous against us than
did the Junkers. That is true. We have in the Party reliable,
capable and untiringly active women comrades. We can assign them to many important posts in the Soviet and Executive Committees, in the People’s Commissariats and public
services of every kind. Many of them work day and night in
the Party or among the masses of the proletariat, the peasants, the Red Army. That is of very great value to us. It is
also important for women all over the world. It shows the
capacity of women, the great value their work has in society. The first proletarian dictatorship is a real pioneer in establishing social equality for women. It is clearing away
more prejudices than could volumes of feminist literature.
But even with all that we still have no international Communist women’s movement, and that we must have. We
must start at once to create it. Without that the work of our
International and of its Parties is not complete work, can
never be complete. But our work for the revolution must be
complete. Tell me, how Communist work is going on
abroad.”
I told him, so far as I was then informed, since the contact at
that time between the Parties included in the Communist International was very loose and irregular. Lenin listened attentively, his
body inclined forward slightly, following, without a trace of boredom, impatience or weariness, even incidental matters. I have never
known anybody who was a better listener and who so rapidly
brought what he heard into order and realized its general connections. That was shown by the short, often very precise questions
with which he now and again interrupted me, and by his return later
to this or that detail of the conversation. He made a few short notes.
4
Of course, I spoke particularly thoroughly of affairs in Germany. I told Lenin what great importance Rosa Luxemburg had attached to bringing the women masses into the revolutionary struggle. After the foundation of the Communist Party she pressed for
the publication of a women’s paper. In my last conversation with
Leo Jogisches – two days before his assassination – we discussed
the immediate tasks of the Party and he transferred various duties to
me, including a plan for organized work among women workers.
The Party dealt with this question at its first illegal conference. Almost without exception the trained and experienced women propagandists and leaders who had come into prominence before and during the war, remained with the Social Democrats, and were followed by the awakening and active women workers. But still a
small nucleus of very energetic and very willing women comrades
had rallied together, who took part in all the work and struggles of
the Party. They had already organized regular work among women
workers. Of course, everything was still at the beginning, but it was
a very good beginning.
“Not bad, not at all bad,” said Lenin. “The energy,
willingness and enthusiasm of women comrades, their
courage and wisdom in times of illegality or semi-legality
indicate good prospects for the development of our work.
They are valuable factors in extending the Party and increasing its strength, in winning the masses and carrying on
our activities. But what about the training and clarity of
principle of these men and women comrades? It is of fundamental importance for work among the masses. It is of
great influence on what closely concerns the masses, how
they can be won, how made enthusiastic. I forget for the
moment who said: ‘One must be enthusiastic to accomplish
great things.’ We and the toilers of the whole world have
really great things to accomplish. So what makes your comrades, the proletarian women of Germany, enthusiastic?
What about their proletarian class consciousness; are their
interests, their activities concentrated on immediate political demands? What is the mainspring of their ideas?
“I have heard some peculiar things on this matter from
Russian and German comrades. I must tell you. I was told
that a talented woman Communist in Hamburg is publish5
ing a paper for prostitutes and that she wants to organize
them for the revolutionary fight. Rosa acted and felt as a
Communist when in an article she championed the cause of
the prostitutes who were imprisoned for any transgression
of police regulations in carrying on their dreary trade. They
are, unfortunately, doubly sacrificed by bourgeois society.
First, by its accursed property system, and, secondly, by its
accursed moral hypocrisy. That is obvious. Only he who is
brutal or short-sighted can forget it. But still, that is not at
all the same thing as considering prostitutes – how shall I
put it? – to be a special revolutionary militant section, as
organizing them and publishing a factory paper for them.
Aren’t there really any other working women in Germany
to organize, for whom a paper can be issued, who must be
drawn into your struggles? The other is only a diseased excrescence. It reminds me of the literary fashion of painting
every prostitute as a sweet Madonna. The origin of that was
healthy, too: social sympathy, rebellion against the virtuous
hypocrisy of the respectable bourgeois. But the healthy part
became corrupted and degenerate.
“Besides, the question of prostitutes will give rise to
many serious problems here. Take them back to productive
work, bring them into the social economy. That is what we
must do. But it is a difficult and a complicated task to carry
out in the present conditions of our economic life and in all
the prevailing circumstances. There you have one aspect of
the women’s problem which, after the seizure of power by
the proletariat, looms large before us and demands a practical solution. It will give us a great deal of work here in Soviet Russia. But to go back to your position in Germany.
The Party must not in any circumstances calmly stand by
and watch such mischievous conduct on the part of its
members. It creates confusion and divides the forces. And
you yourself, what have you done against it?”
Before I could answer, Lenin continued:
“Your list of sins, Clara, is still longer. I was told that
questions of sex and marriage are the main subjects dealt
with in the reading and discussion evenings of women
comrades. They are the chief subject of interest, of political
6
instruction and education. I could scarcely believe my ears
when I heard it. The first country of proletarian dictatorship
surrounded by the counter-revolutionaries of the whole
world, the situation in Germany itself requires the greatest
possible concentration of all proletarian, revolutionary
forces to defeat the ever-growing and ever-increasing counter-revolution. But working women comrades discuss sexual problems and the question of forms of marriage in the
past, present and future. They think it their most important
duty to enlighten proletarian women on these subjects. The
most widely read brochure is, I believe, the pamphlet of a
young Viennese woman comrade on the sexual problem.
What a waste! What truth there is in it the workers have already read in Bebel, long ago. Only not so boringly, not so
heavily written as in the pamphlet, but written strongly, bitterly, aggressively, against bourgeois society.
“The extension on Freudian hypotheses seems ‘educated,’ even scientific, but it is ignorant, bungling. Freudian
theory is the modern fashion. I mistrust the sexual theories of
the articles, dissertations, pamphlets, etc., in short, of that
particular kind of literature which flourishes luxuriantly in
the dirty soil of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are
always contemplating the several questions, like the Indian
saint his navel. It seems to me that these flourishing sexual
theories which are mainly hypothetical, and often quite arbitrary hypotheses, arise from the personal need to justify personal abnormality or hypertrophy in sexual life before bourgeois morality, and to entreat its patience. This masked respect for bourgeois morality seems to me just as repulsive as
poking about in sexual matters. However wild and revolutionary the behavior may be, it is still really quite bourgeois.
It is, mainly, a hobby of the intellectuals and of the sections
nearest them. There is no place for it in the Party, in the class
conscious, fighting proletariat.”
Sex and Bourgeois Morality
I interrupted here, saying that the questions of sex and marriage,
in a bourgeois society of private property, involve many problems,
conflicts and much suffering for women of all social classes and
7
ranks. The war, and its consequences had greatly accentuated the
conflicts and sufferings of women in sexual matters, had brought to
light problems which were formerly hidden from them. To that were
added the effects of the revolution. The old world of feeling and
thought had begun to totter. Old social ties are entangling and
breaking, there are the tendencies towards new ideological relationships between man and woman. The interest shown in these questions is an expression of the need for enlightenment and reorientation. It also indicates a reaction against the falseness and hypocrisy
of bourgeois society. Forms of marriage and of the family, in their
historical development and dependence upon economic life, are
calculated to destroy the superstition existing in the minds of working women concerning the eternal character of bourgeois society. A
critical, historical attitude to those problems must lead to a ruthless
examination of bourgeois society, to a disclosure of its real nature
and effects, including condemnation of its sexual morality and
falseness. All roads lead to Rome. And every real Marxist analysis
of any important section of the ideological superstructure of society,
of a predominating social phenomenon, must lead to an analysis of
bourgeois society and of its property basis, must end in the realization, “this must be destroyed.”
Lenin nodded laughingly.
“There we have it! You are defending counsel for your
women comrades and your Party. Of course, what you say
is right. But it only excuses the mistakes made in Germany;
it does not justify them. They are, and remain, mistakes.
Can you really seriously assure me that the questions of sex
and marriage were discussed from the standpoint of a mature, living, historical materialism? Deep and many-sided
knowledge is necessary for that, the clearest Marxist mastery of a great amount of material. Where can you get the
forces for that now? If they existed, then pamphlets like the
one I mentioned would not be used as material for study in
the reading and discussion circles. They are distributed and
recommended, instead of being criticized. And what is the
result of this futile, un-Marxist dealing with the question?
That questions of sex and marriage are understood not as
part of the large social question? No, worse! The great social question appears as an adjunct, a part, of sexual prob8
lems. The main thing becomes a subsidiary matter. That
does not only endanger clarity on that question itself, it
muddles the thoughts, the class consciousness of proletarian women generally.
“Last and not least. Even the wise Solomon said that
everything has its time. I ask you: Is now the time to amuse
proletarian women with discussions on how one loves and
is loved, how one marries and is married? Of course, in the
past, present and future, and among different nations –
what is proudly called historical materialism! Now all the
thoughts of women comrades, of the women of the working
people, must be directed towards the proletarian revolution.
It creates the basis for a real renovation in marriage and
sexual relations. At the moment other problems are more
urgent than the marriage forms of Maoris or incest in olden
times. The question of Soviets is still on the agenda for the
German proletariat. The Versailles Treaty and its effect on
the life of the working woman – unemployment, falling
wages, taxes, and a great deal more. In short, I maintain
that this kind of political, social education for proletarian
women is false, quite, quite false. How could you be silent
about it? You must use your authority against it.”
I have not failed to criticize and remonstrate with leading women comrades in the separate districts, I told my angry friend. He
himself knew that a prophet is never recognized in his own country
or family. By my criticism I had laid myself open to the charge of
“strong survivals of social democratic ideology and old-fashioned
Philistinism.” But at last the criticism had begun to take effect.
Questions of sex and marriage were no longer the central feature of
discussion. But Lenin continued the thread of thought further.
“I know, I know,” he said. “I have also been accused
by many people of Philistinism in this matter, although that
is repulsive to me. There is so much hypocrisy and narrowmindedness in it. Well, I’m bearing it calmly! The little yellow-beaked birds who have just broken from the egg of
bourgeois ideas are always frightfully clever. We shall have
to let that go. The youth movement too, is attacked with the
disease of modernity in its attitude towards sexual questions and in being exaggeratedly concerned with them.”
9
Lenin gave an ironic emphasis to the word modernity and
grimaced as he did so.
“I have been told that sexual questions are the favorite
study of your youth organizations, too. There is supposed
to be a lack of sufficient orators on the subject. Such misconceptions are particularly harmful, particularly dangerous
in the youth movement. They can very easily contribute
towards over-excitement and exaggeration in the sexual life
of some of them, to a waste of youthful health and strength.
You must fight against that, too. There are not a few points
of contact between the women’s and youth movements.
Our women comrades must work together systematically
with the youth. That is a continuation, an extension and exaltation of motherliness from the individual to the social
sphere. And all the awakening social life and activity of
women must be encouraged, so that they can discard the
limitations of their Philistine individualist home and family
psychology. But we’ll come to that later.
“With us, too, a large part of the youth is keen on ‘revising bourgeois conceptions and morality’ concerning
sexual questions. And, I must add, a large part of our best,
our most promising young people. What you said before is
true. In the conditions created by the war and the revolution
the old ideological values disappeared or lost their binding
force. The new values are crystallizing slowly, in struggle.
In the relations between man and man, between man and
woman, feelings and thoughts are becoming revolutionized.
New boundaries are being set up between the rights of the
individual and the rights of the whole, in the duties of individuals. The matter is still in a completely chaotic ferment.
The direction, the forces of development in the various contradictory tendencies are not yet clearly defined. It is a slow
and often a very painful process of decay and growth. And
particularly in the sphere of sexual relationships, of marriage and the family. The decay, the corruption, the filth of
bourgeois marriage, with its difficult divorce, its freedom
for the man, its enslavement for the woman, the repulsive
hypocrisy of sexual morality and relations fill the most active minded and best people with deep disgust.
“The constraint of bourgeois marriage and the family
10
laws of bourgeois states accentuate these evils and conflicts. It is the force of ‘holy property.’ It sanctifies venality, degradation, filth. And the conventional hypocrisy of
honest bourgeois society does the rest. People are beginning to protest against the prevailing rottenness and falseness, and the feelings of an individual change rapidly. The
desire and urge to enjoyment easily attain unbridled force
at a time when powerful empires are tottering, old forms of
rule breaking down, when a whole social world is beginning to disappear. Sex and marriage forms, in their bourgeois sense, are unsatisfactory. A revolution in sex and
marriage is approaching, corresponding to the proletarian
revolution. It is easily comprehensible that the very involved complex of problems brought into existence should
occupy the mind of the youth, as well as of women. They
suffer particularly under present-day sexual grievances.
They are rebelling with all the impetuosity of their years.
We can understand that. Nothing could be more false than
to preach monkish asceticism and the sanctity of dirty
bourgeois morality to the youth. It is particularly serious if
sex becomes the main mental concern during those years
when it is physically most obvious. What fatal effects that
has! Speak to Comrade Lilina* about it. She has had much
experience in her work in educational institutions of various kinds, and you know that she is a thorough Communist
and entirely unprejudiced.
The “Glass of Water Theory"
“The changed attitude of the young people to questions
of sexual life is of course based on a ‘principle’ and a theory. Many of them call their attitude ‘revolutionary’ and
‘Communistic.’ And they honestly believe that it is so. That
does not impress us old people. Although I am nothing but
a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ‘new sexual life’ of the
youth – and sometimes of the old – often seems to me to be
purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That
has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as
*
The wife of G. Zinoviev. – Ed.
11
we Communists understand it. You must be aware of the
famous theory that in Communist society the satisfaction of
sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant
as drinking a glass of water. This glass of water theory has
made our young people mad, quite mad. It has proved fatal
to many young boys and girls. Its adherents maintain that it
is Marxist. But thanks for such Marxism which directly and
immediately attributes all phenomena and changes in the
ideological superstructure of society to its economic basis!
Matters aren’t quite as simple as that. A certain Frederick
Engels pointed that out a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.
“I think this glass of water theory is completely unMarxist, and moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is
not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural
characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order. In
his Origin of the Family Engels showed how significant is
the development and refinement of the general sex urge into individual sex love. The relations of the sexes to each
other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect. It is
rationalism, and not Marxism, to want to trace changes in
these relations directly, and dissociated from their connections with ideology as a whole, to the economic foundations of society. Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will
the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the
gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim
greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new
life, arises. It is that which gives it its social interest, which
gives rise to a duty towards the community.
“As a communist I have not the least sympathy for the
glass of water theory, although it bears the fine title ‘satisfaction of love.’ In any case, this liberation of love is neither new, nor Communist. You will remember that about
the middle of the last century it was preached as the ‘emancipation of the heart’ in romantic literature. In bourgeois
practice it became the emancipation of the flesh. At that
12
time the preaching was more talented than it is to-day, and
as for the practice, I cannot judge. I don’t mean to preach
asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism
will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and
a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion
the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does
not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age
of revolution that is bad, very bad.
“Young people, particularly, need the joy and force of
life. Healthy sport, swimming, racing, walking, bodily exercises of every kind, and many-sided intellectual interests.
Learning, studying, inquiry, as far as possible in common.
That will give young people more than eternal theories and
discussions about sexual problems and the so-called ‘living
to the full.’ Healthy bodies, healthy minds! Neither monk
nor Don Juan, nor the intermediate attitude of the German
Philistines. You know young comrade ___? A splendid
boy, and highly talented. And yet I fear that nothing good
will come out of him. He reels and staggers from one love
affair to the next. That won’t do for the political struggle,
for the revolution. And I wouldn’t bet on the reliability, the
endurance in struggle of those women who confuse their
personal romances with politics. Nor on the men who run
after every petticoat and get entrapped by every young
woman. No, no! that does not square with the revolution.”
Lenin sprang up, banged his hand on the table, and paced the
room for a while.
“The revolution demands concentration, increase of
forces. From the masses, from individuals. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions, such as are normal for the decadent
heroes and heroines of D’Annunzio. Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay. The proletariat is a rising class. It doesn’t need intoxication as a narcotic or a stimulus. Intoxication as little by sexual exaggeration as by alcohol. It must not and shall not forget, forget
the shame, the filth, the savagery of capitalism. It receives
the strongest urge to fight from a class situation, from the
Communist ideal. It needs clarity, clarity and again clarity.
And so I repeat, no weakening, no waste, no destruction of
13
forces. Self-control, self-discipline is not slavery, not even
in love. But forgive me, Clara, I have wandered far from
the starting point of our conversation. Why didn’t you call
me to order? My tongue has run away with me. I am deeply
concerned about the future of our youth. It is a part of the
revolution. And if harmful tendencies are appearing, creeping over from bourgeois society into the world of revolution – as the roots of many weeds spread – it is better to
combat them early. Such questions are part of the woman
question.”
Special Organizations for Women
Lenin had spoken with great animation and fervor. I felt that
every word came from his heart, and the expression of his features
reinforced that feeling. Sometimes a vigorous movement of the
hand emphasized an idea. I marveled that Lenin, confronted by urgent and great political problems, devoted such attention to secondary matters and analyzed them. And not only as they appeared in
Soviet Russia, but in the still-capitalist states. Like the excellent
Marxist that he was, he comprehended the particular in whatever
form it manifested itself, in its relation to the general, and in its significance for the whole. Undeviating, unshakable as an irresistible
natural force, his life will, his life aim was directed to one thing: to
hasten the work of the masses towards revolution. So he evaluated
everything by its effects on the conscious driving forces of revolution. National as well as international, for, with a full regard for historically determined peculiarities in separate countries and the varied stages of development, there stood always before his eyes the
one and indivisible world revolution.
“How I regret that there were not hundreds, thousands to hear
your words, Comrade Lenin,” I cried. “You know you have no need
to convert me. But it would be good for friends and foes to hear
your views.”
Lenin smiled.
“Perhaps one day I shall speak or write on these questions – but not now. Now all our time and energy must be
devoted to other matters. There are greater and more serious troubles. The struggle to maintain and strengthen the
14
Soviet power is far from ended. We must get over the results of the war with Poland, and try to make the best of
them. Wrangel is still in the South. But I am quite confident
that we shall soon finish with him. That will give the British and French imperialists and their petty vassals something to think about. But the most difficult part of our work
still lies before us – construction. In that, questions of sexual relationship, of marriage and the family will become current problems. Meanwhile, you must take up the fight
wherever and whenever it is necessary. You must see that
these questions are not dealt with in an un-Marxist fashion,
and that they do not serve as a basis for deviations and intrigues. And so at last I come to your work.”
Lenin glanced at the clock. “Half of the time I had set aside for
you has already gone,” he said. “I have been chattering. You will
draw up proposals for Communist work among women. I know
your principles and practical experience in the matter. So there need
not be much for us to discuss. Fire away. What sort of proposals
have you in mind?”
I gave a concise account of them. Lenin nodded repeatedly in
agreement without interrupting me. When I had finished, I looked at
him questioningly.
“Agreed,” said he, “discuss it further with Zinoviev. It
would also be good if you could report on and discuss the
matter at a meeting of leading women comrades. It’s a pity,
a great pity, that Comrade Inessa* is not here. She is ill, and
has gone to the Caucasus. After discussion, write out the
proposals. A Commission will examine them and finally
the Executive will give its decision. I only want to speak on
a few main points, in which I fully share your attitude.
They seem to me to be important for our current agitation
and propaganda work, if that work is to lead to action and
successful struggles.
“The thesis must clearly point out that real freedom for
women is possible only through Communism. The inseparable connection between the social and human position of
*
Inessa Armand, a leading Bolshevik, active among women workers,
now dead. – Ed.
15
the woman, and private property in the means of production, must be strongly brought out. That will draw a clear
and ineradicable line of distinction between our policy and
feminism. And it will also supply the basis for regarding
the woman question as a part of the social question, of the
workers’ problem, and so bind it firmly to the proletarian
class struggle and the revolution. The Communist women’s
movement must itself be a mass movement, part of the
general mass movement. Not only of the proletariat, but of
all the exploited and oppressed, all the victims of capitalism
or any other mastery. In that lies its significance for the
class struggles of the proletariat and for its historical creation – Communist society. We can rightly be proud of the
fact that in the Party, in the Communist International, we
have the flower of revolutionary womankind. But that is
not enough. We must win over to our side the millions of
toiling women in the towns and villages. Win them for our
struggles and in particular for the Communist transformation of society. There can be no real mass movement
without women.
“Our ideological conceptions give rise to principles of
organization. No special organizations for women. A woman Communist is a member of the Party just as a man
Communist, with equal rights and duties. There can be no
difference of opinion on that score. Nevertheless, we must
not close our eyes to the fact that the Party must have bodies, working groups, commissions, committees, bureaus or
whatever you like, whose particular duty it is to arouse the
masses of women workers, to bring them into contact with
the Party, and to keep them under its influence. That, of
course, involves systematic work among them. We must
train those whom we arouse and win, and equip them for
the proletarian class struggle under the leadership of the
Communist Party. I am thinking not only of proletarian
women, whether they work in the factory or at home. The
poor peasant women, the petty bourgeois – they, too, are
the prey of capitalism, and more so than ever since the war.
The unpolitical, unsocial, backward psychology of these
women, their isolated sphere of activity, the entire manner
of their life – these are facts. It would be absurd to overlook
16
them, absolutely absurd. We need appropriate bodies to
carry on work amongst them, special methods of agitation
and forms of organization. That is not feminism, that is
practical, revolutionary expediency.”
I told Lenin that his words encouraged me greatly. Many comrades, and good comrades at that, strongly combated the idea that
the Party should have special bodies for systematic work among
women. They “taboo” it as feminism, and a return to social democratic traditions. They contend that the Communist Parties, on principle affording equal rights to men and women, should work as a
whole among the working masses as a whole, without differentiation. Women have to be included the same as men, and under the
same conditions. Any attention, in agitation or organization, paid to
the circumstances adduced by Lenin were characterized as opportunist, as surrender and treachery by the upholders of the other point
of view.
“That is neither new nor proof,” said Lenin. “You must
not be misled by that. Why have we never had as many
women as men in the Party – not at any time in Soviet Russia? Why is the number of women workers organized in
trade unions so small? Facts give food for thought. The rejection of the necessity for separate bodies for our work
among the women masses is a conception allied to those of
our highly principled and most radical friends of the Communist Labor Party. According to them there must be only
one form of organization, workers’ unions. I know them.
Many revolutionary but confused minds appeal to principle
‘whenever ideas are lacking.’ That is, when the mind is
closed to the sober facts, which must be considered. How
do such guardians of ‘pure principle’ square their ideas
with the necessities of the revolutionary policy historically
forced upon us? All that sort of talk breaks down before inexorable necessity. Unless millions of women are with us
we cannot exercise the proletarian dictatorship, cannot construct on Communist lines. We must find our way to them,
we must study and try to find that way.
17
Special Demands for Women
“That is why it is right for us to put forward demands
favorable to women. That is not a minimum, a reform program in the sense of the Social Democrats, of the Second
International. It is not a recognition that we believe in the
eternal character, or even in the long duration of the rule of
the bourgeoisie and their state. It is not an attempt to appease women by reforms and to divert them from the path
of revolutionary struggle. It is not that nor any other reformist swindle. Our demands are practical conclusions
which we have drawn from the burning needs, the shameful
humiliation of women, in bourgeois society, defenseless
and without rights. We demonstrate thereby that we recognize these needs, and are sensible of the humiliation of the
woman, the privileges of the man. That we hate, yes, hate
everything, and will abolish everything which tortures and.
oppresses the woman worker, the housewife, the peasant
woman, the wife of the petty trader, yes, and in many cases
the women of the possessing classes. The rights and social
regulations which we demand for women from bourgeois
society show that we understand the position and interests
of women, and will have consideration for them under the
proletarian dictatorship. Not, of course, as the reformists
do, lulling them to inaction and keeping them in leading
strings. No, of course not; but as revolutionaries who call
upon the women to work as equals in transforming the old
economy and ideology.”
I assured Lenin that I shared his views, but that they would
certainly meet with resistance. Uncertain and timorous minds would
think them risky opportunism. Nor could it be denied that our
immediate demands for women could be wrongly drawn up and
expressed.
“Nonsense!” said Lenin, almost bad temperedly, “that
danger is present in everything that we do and say. If we
were to be deterred by fear of that from doing what is correct
and necessary, we might as well become Indian Stylites.
Don’t move, don’t move, we can contemplate our principles
from a high pillar! Of course, we are concerned not only
18
with the contents of our demands, but with the manner in
which we present them. I thought I had made that clear
enough. Of course we shan’t put forward our demands for
women as though we were mechanically counting our beads.
No, according to the prevailing circumstances, we must fight
now for this, now for that. And, of course, always in connection with the general interests of the proletariat.
“Every such struggle brings us in opposition to respectable bourgeois relationships, and to their not less respectable reformist admirers whom it compels, either to
fight together with us under our leadership – which they
don’t want to do – or to be shown up in their true colors.
That is, the struggle clearly brings out the differences between us and other Parties, brings out our Communism. It
wins us the confidence of the masses of women who feel
themselves exploited, enslaved, suppressed, by the domination of the man, by the power of the employer, by the
whole of bourgeois society. Betrayed and deserted by all,
the working women will recognize that they must fight together with us.
“Must I again swear to you, or let you swear, that the
struggles for our demands for women must be bound up
with the object of seizing power, of establishing the proletarian dictatorship? That is our Alpha and Omega at the
present time. That is clear, quite clear. But the women of
the working people will not feel irresistibly driven into
sharing our struggles for the state power if we only and always put forward that one demand, though it were with the
trumpets of Jericho. No, no! The women must: be made
conscious of the political connection between our demands
and their own suffering, needs, and wishes. They must I realize what the proletarian dictatorship means for them:
complete equality with man in law and practice, in the family, in the state, in society; an end to the power of the bourgeoisie.”
“Soviet Russia shows that,” I interrupted.
“That will be the great example in our teaching,” Lenin
continued. “Soviet Russia puts our demands for women in a
new light. Under the proletarian dictatorship those demands
19
are not objects of struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. They are part of the structure of Communist society. That indicates to women in other countries the decisive
importance of the winning of power by the proletariat. The
difference must be sharply emphasized, so as to get the
women into the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. It is essential for the Communist Parties, and for their triumph, to rally them on a clear understanding of principle and
a firm organizational basis. But don’t let us deceive ourselves. Our national sections still lack a correct understanding of this matter. They are standing idly by while there is
this task of creating a mass movement of working women
under Communist leadership. They don’t understand that the
development and management of such a mass movement is
an important part of entire Party activity, indeed, a half of
general Party work. Their occasional recognition of the necessity and value of a powerful, clear-headed Communist
women’s movement is a platonic verbal recognition, not the
constant care and obligation of the Party.
“Agitation and propaganda work among women, their
awakening and revolutionization, is regarded as an incidental matter, as an affair which only concerns women
comrades. They alone are reproached because work it that
direction does not proceed more quickly and more vigorously. That is wrong, quite wrong! Real separatism and as
the French say, feminism a la rebours, feminism upside
down! What is at the basis of the incorrect attitude of our
national sections? In the; final analysis it is nothing but an
under-estimation of woman and her work. Yes, indeed! Unfortunately it is still true to say of many of our comrades,
‘scratch a Communist and find a Philistine.’ Of course, you
must scratch the sensitive spot, their mentality as regards
woman. Could there be a more damning proof of this than
the calm acquiescence of men who see how women grow
worn out in the petty, monotonous household work, their
strength and time dissipated and wasted, their minds growing narrow and stale, their hearts beating slowly, their will
weakened? Of course, I am not speaking of the ladies of the
bourgeoisie who shove on to servants the responsibility for
all household work, including the care of children. What I
20
am saying applies to the overwhelming majority of women,
to the wives of workers and to those who stand all day in a
factory.
“So few men – even among the proletariat – realize
how much effort and trouble they could save women, even
quite do away with, if they were to lend a hand in ‘woman’s work.’ But no, that is contrary to the ‘right and dignity
of a man.’ They want their peace and comfort. The home
life of the woman is a daily sacrifice to a thousand unimportant trivialities. The old master right of the man still
lives in secret. His slave takes her revenge, also secretly.
The backwardness of women, their lack of understanding
for the revolutionary ideals of the man decrease his joy and
determination in fighting. They are like little worms which,
unseen, slowly but surely, rot and corrode. I know the life
of the worker, and not only from books. Our Communist
work among the women, our political work, embraces a
great deal of educational work among men. We must root
out the old ‘master’ idea to its last and smallest root, in the
Party and among the masses. That is one of our political
tasks, just as is the urgently necessary task of forming a
staff of men and women comrades, well trained in theory
and practice, to carry on Party activity among working
women.”
Women in Soviet Russia
To my question about the conditions in Soviet Russia on this
point, Lenin replied:
“The Government of the proletarian dictatorship, together with the Communist Party and trade unions, is of
course leaving no stone unturned in the effort to overcome
the backward ideas of men and women, to destroy the old
un-Communist psychology. In law there is naturally complete equality of rights for men and women. And everywhere there is evidence of a sincere wish to put this equality into practice. We are bringing the women into the social
economy, into legislation and government. All educational
institutions are open to them, so that they can increase their
21
professional and social capacities. We are establishing
communal kitchens and public eating-houses, laundries and
repairing shops, infant asylums, kindergartens, children’s
homes, educational institutes of all kinds. In short, we are
seriously carrying out the demand in our program for the
transference of the economic and educational functions of
the separate household to society. That will mean freedom
for the woman from the old household drudgery and dependence on man. That enables her to exercise to the full
her talents and her inclinations. The children are brought up
under more favorable conditions than at home. We have the
most advanced protective laws for women workers in the
world, and the officials of the organized workers carry
them out. We are establishing maternity hospitals, homes
for mothers and children, mothercraft clinics, organizing
lecture courses on child care, exhibitions teaching mothers
how to look after themselves and their children, and similar
things. We are making the most serious efforts to maintain
women who are unemployed and unprovided for.
“We realize clearly that that is not very much, in comparison with the needs of the working women, that it is far
from being all that is required for their real freedom. But still
it is tremendous progress, as against conditions in tsaristcapitalist Russia. It is even a great deal compared with conditions in countries where capitalism still has a free hand. It is
a good beginning in the right direction, and we shall develop
it further. With all our energy, you may believe that. For every day of the existence of the Soviet state proves more clearly that we cannot go forward without the women. Think
what that means in a country where a good 80 per cent of the
population are peasants! Small peasant economy means
small separate households, with the women chained to them.
In this respect it will be much easier and better for you than
it is for us. Granted that your proletarian women will seize
the objective historical moment for winning power, for the
revolution. And we don’t despair of that.
“Our strength grows with our difficulties. The force of
facts will drive us forward to seek new measures for liberating the women masses. In collaboration with the Soviet
state, cooperation will do a great deal. Cooperation, of
22
course, in the Communist and not the bourgeois sense, as
preached by the reformists, whose unrevolutionary enthusiasm evaporated in cheap vinegar. Personal initiative must
go hand in hand with cooperation, an initiative which
grows into and becomes fused with communal activity.
Under the proletarian dictatorship the liberation of the
women will come about through the development of Communism, even in the villages. I base my highest hopes for
that on the electrification of our industry and agriculture. A
great work that! And the difficulties of putting it into execution are great, terribly great. The greatest forces of the
masses must be awakened and applied to accomplish it.
And the forces of the millions of women must help.”
There had been two knocks during the last ten minutes Lenin
had continued speaking. Now he opened the door and called out,
“I’m coming at once.” Then, turning to me, he added laughingly,
“You know, Clara, I shall make use of the fact that I was with a
woman. I’ll explain my lateness by reference to the well-known
feminine volubility. Although this time it was the man, and not the
woman, who spoke such a lot. For the rest, I shall bear witness that
you can really listen seriously. Perhaps it was that which stimulated
me to eloquence.”
So joking, Lenin helped me on with my coat. “You must dress
more warmly,” he said thoughtfully. “Moscow is not Stuttgart. You
must be looked after. Don’t catch cold. Auf wiedersehen!” He shook
me heartily by the hand.
Plan for World Women’s Congress
About two weeks later I had another conversation with Lenin
on the women’s movement. Lenin was visiting me. As almost always, his visit was unexpected, a sudden break in the midst of the
overwhelming burden of work which at last overcame the leader of
the victorious revolution. Lenin looked very fatigued and worried.
Wrangel’s defeat was still not certain, and the problem of provisioning the large towns with food faced the Soviet Government like an
inexorable Sphinx.
Lenin asked me about the directives or theses. I told him that
there had been a big commission attended by all the leading women
23
comrades present in Moscow, who had stated their views. Proposals
had been drawn up and were now to be considered by a smaller
commission. Lenin said we must remember that the Third World
Congress would deal with the question with all the necessary thorough care.
“That fact alone would overcome many of the comrades’ prejudices. For the rest, the women comrades must
set to work, and that hard. Not lispingly, like kind aunties,
but speaking out loudly as fighters, speaking clearly,” Lenin cried animatedly. “A Congress is not a salon, where
women shine by their grace, as the romances put it. It is an
arena where we struggle for knowledge or how to act in a
revolutionary way. Prove that you can fight. First, of
course, against the foe, but also in the Party if it is necessary. We are dealing with millions of women. Our Russian
Party will be in favor of all proposals and measures which
will help to win them. If they are not with us, the counterrevolution may succeed in leading them against us. We
must always think of that– The women masses, we must
get them, whatever the difficulties we may encounter in doing so.”
Here, in the midst of the revolution, with its richly-flowing life,
its strong, rapid pulsation, I had thought of a plan for international
activity among the working women masses. “Your big non-party
women’s conferences and congresses gave me the main idea. We are
going to transfer that idea from the national to the international plane.
It is a fact that the world war and its consequences deeply affected all
women in the various social classes and ranks. They lived in ferment
and activity. They are faced by questions in the form of the bitterest
worries about maintaining and using life, which most of them never
dreamed of, which only a few have clearly understood. Bourgeois
society is not able to answer these questions satisfactorily. Only
Communism can do that. We must make the masses of women in the
capitalist countries conscious of that and for that purpose arrange a
non-party International Women’s Congress.”
Lenin did not answer at once. With his glance as it were, turned
inwards, mouth firmly pressed together, the under-lip protruding
slightly, he considered my proposal. Then he said: “Yes, we must
do it. It’s a good plan. But good plans, even the most excellent,
24
don’t work unless they are well carried out. Have you considered
how to carry it out? What are your views on the matter?”
I gave them to Lenin in detail. The first thing was to form a
committee of women comrades from various countries in constant
and close contact with our national sections, to prepare, arrange and
call the congress. Whether that committee should begin to work at
once officially and publicly was a question of expediency still to be
considered. In any case the first task of its members would be to get
in touch with women leaders of women workers organized in trade
unions, of the political working-class women’s movement, of bourgeois women’s organizations of every sort, including women doctors, teachers, journalists, etc., and to set up in the various countries
a national non-party Arrangements Committee. The International
Committee was to be formed from members of the National Committees, which would arrange and convene the International Congress, and decide its agenda and time and place of meeting.
In my opinion the congress should first of all deal with women’s right to professional work. That will involve questions of unemployment, equal pay for equal work, the legal eight-hour day and
protective legislation for women, trade union and professional organization, social provision for mother and child, social institutions
to help the housewife and mother, etc. The agenda should also include: the position of the woman in marriage and family law, and in
public-political law. I elaborated these proposals and then went on
to suggest how the national committees could make thorough preparations for the congress by a systematic campaign in the Press and
at meetings. The campaign would be of particular importance in
appealing to the largest possible masses of women, in inducing
them to deal seriously with the problems to be discussed and in directing their attention to Communism and the Parties of the Communist International. The campaign should take place among active
and working women of all social ranks; it must insure the presence
and cooperation at the congress of representatives of all organizations dealt with as well as delegates from open women’s meetings.
The congress must be a “people’s representation” in quite another
sense from that of bourgeois parliaments.
Of course, Communist women must be not only the driving, but
also the leading force in the preparatory work. They must be accorded energetic support by our sections. All this, of course, applies
also to the work of the International Committee, the work of the
25
congress itself and the utilization of that work. Communist theses
and resolutions on all items of the agenda must be submitted to the
congress, unambiguous in principle and objectively and scientifically based on prevailing social conditions. These theses should be
discussed and approved by the Executive of the International.
Communist slogans and Communist proposals must be the center of
the work of the congress, of public attention. After the congress
they must be spread among the widest possible masses of women
and help to determine international mass action on the part of women. An indispensable condition for good work is of course, for all
the women Communists in the committees and at the congress, to
be firmly and closely united, to work together systematically on
clear and decided principles. No one must be permitted to slip out of
the ranks.
While I had been talking, Lenin had often nodded his head in
agreement, or made brief remarks of assent. “It seems to me, dear
comrade,” he said, “that you have considered the political aspect of
the matter very well, and also the chief points of organization. I
firmly believe that in the present situation such a congress can do
important work. It may make it possible for us to win over to our
side large masses of women. Masses of professional women, industrial workers, housewives, teachers and others. That would be very
good, very good! Think of the position during large scale industrial
disputes or political strikes. What an increase in the power of the
revolutionary proletariat by the addition of consciously rebelling
women. That is, of course, if we understand how to win and to keep
them. The gain would be great, tremendous. But there are a few
questions. It is probable that the state authorities will look most unfavorably on the work of the congress, that they will try to prevent
it. But I don’t think they will dare brutally to suppress it. What they
do won’t frighten you. But do you fear that the Communists in the
committees and the congress will be controlled by the numerical
majority of bourgeois and reformist members, and by their undoubtedly strong routine ? And, finally, and above all, have you
really the confidence in the Marxist training of our women comrades to form, as it were, shock troops from among them, who will
come through the struggle with honor?”
I answered that the authorities would be most unlikely to take
any violent action against the congress. Tricks and brutal measures
against the congress would only act as propaganda for it. The num26
ber and weight of non-Communist elements will be met by us
Communists with the scientific superior strength of historical materialism in the understanding and elucidation of social problems,
with the coherence of our demands and suggestions, and last, but
not least, with the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia and
its pioneer work in the liberation of women. Weaknesses and deficiencies in the training and understanding of individual comrades
can be made up for by systematic cooperation and preparation. I
expect the best from our Russian comrades in this matter. They will
be the iron center of our phalanx. With them I would confidently
dare more than congress battles. Besides, even if we are out-voted,
the very fact of our struggle will push Communism into the foreground, and will be of extremely good propaganda value in creating
contacts for work later on.
Lenin laughed heartily.
“The same enthusiast as ever about the Russian women
revolutionists. Yes, yes, the old love hasn’t weakened. And
I believe you are right. Even defeat after a good struggle
would be an advantage, a preparation for future gains
among working women. Taken all in all, it is an undertaking worth the risk. We can never lose altogether in it. Although, of course, I hope for victory, hope for it from the
bottom of my heart. It would be an important addition to
our strength, a great extension and reinforcement of our
front, it would bring new life, movement, activity to our
ranks. And that is always useful. Moreover, the congress
would arouse and increase unrest, uncertainty, hostilities
and conflicts in the camp of the bourgeoisie and their reformist friends. Just imagine those who will meet together
with the ‘hyenas of the revolution’ and, if all goes well, under their leadership, – honest, tame Social Democratic
women from the camp of Scheidemann, Dittmann and Legien; pious Christians, blessed by the Pope, or swearing by
Luther, daughters of privy councilors – and freshly baked
government councilors, lady-like English pacifists and passionate French feminists. What a picture of the chaos and
decay of the bourgeois such a congress would give. What a
reflection of its futility and hopelessness. Such a congress
would accentuate the disintegration and so weaken the
27
forces of the counter-revolution. Every weakening of the
forces of the enemy is simultaneously a strengthening of
our power. I agree to the congress – speak to Gregory*
about it. He will quite understand the importance of the
matter. We shall support it vigorously. So begin, and good
luck in the fight.”
We went on to speak of the situation in Germany, particularly
of the coming “Unity Congress” between the old “Spartacists”† and
the left wing of the Independents.‡ Then Lenin hurried away, greeting a few comrades writing in a room through which he had to pass.
Comrade Zinoviev also approved of my plan. I set about the
work of preparation hopefully.
Unfortunately the congress came to grief because of the attitude
of German and Bulgarian women comrades, who at that time had
the best Communist women’s movement outside Russia. They rejected the congress. When I told Lenin, he replied: “Pity, a great
pity! The comrades have let slip a brilliant opportunity to open a
way of hope to masses of women workers, and so to bring them into
the revolutionary struggles of the working-class. Who knows
whether such a favorable opportunity will occur again soon? The
iron must be struck while it is hot. But the task itself still remains.
You must find a way of reaching the women who have been thrust
by capitalism into frightful misery. You must, must find it. That
necessity cannot be evaded. Without organized mass activity under
Communist leadership there can be no victory over capitalism, no
building of Communism. That is why in the end the women will be
compelled to rise in revolt.”
*
Gregory Zinoviev. – Ed.
†
Spartacus League, founded by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg,
the forerunner of the Communist Party. – Ed.
‡
Independent Social-Democratic Party. – Ed.
28
THE TASKS OF THE WORKING WOMEN’S MOVEMENT
IN THE SOVIET REPUBLIC*
By V. I. LENIN
...Comrades! I should like to say a few words about the general
tasks of the working women’s movement in the Soviet Republic –
tasks connected with the transition to Socialism in general, as well
as tasks which are of foremost importance at the present time.
Comrades! The question of the condition of women was raised
by the Soviet power from the very beginning. It seems to me that
the task of every workers’ state, on its transition to Socialism, will
have to be of two kinds. The first part of that task is a quite simple
and easy one, dealing with the old laws which placed woman in a
position of inequality in relation to man.
Long ago, not only for decades but for centuries, representatives of emancipation movements in Western Europe raised demands for abolishing the obsolete laws and for the legal equality of
women with men, but none of these democratic European states,
none of the most advanced republics succeeded in putting this into
life, for the simple reason that where capitalism and private ownership of land, factories and shops exist, where capital is in power,
men are the privileged.
In Russia it was possible to carry this through only because the
workers’ power has been established since November 7, 1917. The
Soviet power, from the very beginning, set itself the task of existing
as a power of the toiling masses opposed to all kinds of exploitation.
It set itself the task of abolishing the possibility of exploitation of
the toiling masses by the landlords and the capitalists, of abolishing
the reign of capital. The aim of the Soviet power was to assure for
the toiling masses all possibilities of building their life without private ownership of land, factories and shops – that private ownership
which, all over the world, even under conditions of political freedom, in the most democratic republics, has actually placed workers
in a state of poverty and wage slavery, and women in a state of double servitude.
In the first months of its existence, the Soviet power, as the
*
Excerpts from a speech delivered at the Fourth Non-Party Conference
of Working Women, Moscow, September 25, 1919.
29
power of the toiling masses, made a complete transformation in legislation relating to women. Not a stone was left unturned by the Soviet Republic in the laws which had placed the woman in a subordinate position. I have in mind particularly those laws which, on the
ground of the weaker position of women, put them in an unequal
and often humiliating position, namely, the laws dealing with divorce and children born out of wedlock, of the woman’s right of
claim on the father of the child for the child’s support.
We can say that precisely in this field of bourgeois legislation,
even the most advanced countries utilized the weaker condition of
woman to deprive her of equal rights and to humiliate her, and it is
precisely in this field that the Soviet power has left no stone unturned with regard to the old, unjust laws which are unbearable to
the representatives of the toiling masses. And now we can say with
pride and without any exaggeration that outside of Soviet Russia
there is not a single country in the world where women enjoy full
rights, where women are not placed in a humiliating position which
is particularly felt in everyday and family life. This has been one of
our first and most important tasks....
We, representatives of the Soviet power, BolsheviksCommunists and adherents of the Soviet Government, are continually accused of violating the principles of democracy, and to prove
these accusations they bring forward the fact that the Soviet power
has dispersed the Constituent Assembly. Our answer to this accusation is the following: we do not appreciate that democracy and that
Constituent Assembly which came into being during the existence
of private ownership of land, when there was no equality among
people, when the owner of private capital was the master, while the
rest, the toilers, were his hired slaves. Such democracy has covered
up slavery even in the most advanced countries.
We, Socialists, are adherents of democracy to the extent that it
relieves the conditions of the toiling and oppressed masses. The aim
of Socialism in the whole world is to fight exploitation of one human being by another. For us democracy has a real significance
when it serves the exploited and all those suffering from inequality.
Disfranchisement of those who are not working means real equality
among people. Those who do not work shall not eat.
We say in reply to these accusations that it is necessary to raise
the question of how democracy is practiced in this or that state. We
see equality declared in all the democratic republics, but in the civil
30
laws and the laws dealing with woman and her position in the family, in the question of divorce, in every step we observe inequality
and degradation for women. And we declare that this is violation of
democracy particularly with regard to the oppressed. The Soviet
power, more than any other of the most advanced countries, has
realized democracy by the very fact that not a single trace of inequality for women was left in its laws. I repeat, not one state and no
democratic legislation has given woman half of what the Soviet
power has given her in the first months of its existence.
It goes without saying that laws alone are not sufficient and we
cannot be satisfied with what we say in the field of legislation. But
we are proud to say that we have accomplished everything that was
expected of us in providing equality for women. The condition of
women in Soviet Russia at the present time is such that it is ideal
from the viewpoint of the most advanced states. But we say to ourselves that this is certainly only the beginning.
The position of women in the household still remains restricted.
For the complete emancipation of women and for their real equality
with men, it is necessary to establish social economy and the participation of women in general productive labor. Only then will the
woman occupy the same place as the man.
It is understood that when we talk of equality for women in
productive labor, in extent of labor, its duration, conditions, etc., we
mean that the woman should not be oppressed in her economic position in comparison with the man. You all know that even in conditions of complete equality, there still remains the real oppression of
woman, because she carries the whole burden of the household.
This household economy, carried on by the woman, is in most cases
unproductive, most primitive and most burdensome. Such work,
petty in itself, cannot help the development of women.
Aiming for a Socialist ideal, we are fighting for a complete realization of Socialism, and here a large field for work is open for
women. We are, at the present time, clearing the road for Socialist
construction. The construction of Socialist society will begin only
then when we, having established the complete equality of women,
will undertake this new work together with women, freed from this
petty, stupefying, unproductive labor. Such work will last for many
years to come. It cannot be expected to show quick results, nor brilliant effects.
We are now building model institutions, dining rooms, nurse31
ries, for the purpose of liberating the woman from household economy, and the work of establishing such institutions is especially
fitted for women. We must say that such institutions which would
aid the woman to free herself from being a household slave are very
few in Russia. There are few of them and the conditions in which
the Soviet Republic finds itself at the present time – conditions of
war and food supply about which the comrades have spoken here in
detail – interfere with this work. Yet we must say that these institutions which free the woman from her condition of a household slave
are springing up everywhere, wherever there is the slightest possibility. We say that the liberation of the working class must be the
task of the workers, just as the liberation of working women must
be the task of the working women. The working women themselves
must concern themselves with the development of these institutions,
and these activities of women will ultimately bring a complete
change from her position in a capitalist society....
Not only women who are in the Party and are class-conscious,
but also the non-party and less class-conscious working women,
must participate in politics. Here, a broad field of activity is opened
for working women by the Soviet power.
We had great difficulties in the struggle against the class forces
inimical to Soviet Russia which are arrayed against us. We had
great difficulties in the military field against the forces which are
carrying on a war against the rule of the toiling masses, and in the
field of food supply against the speculators, because the number of
toilers who would come to us with their assistance was not sufficiently large. And here the Soviet power cannot appreciate enough
the aid of the broad masses of the non-party working women. They
must know that maybe in the old bourgeois society much preparation was necessary to permit political activity and that this was impossible for women. But the political activity of the Soviet Republic
has as its main aim the struggle against landlords and capitalists, the
struggle for abolishing exploitation, and therefore in the Soviet Republic a field of political activity is open for women to help men
with their organizational ability.
We need organizational work not only on a large, but also on a
small scale, which will also give women a chance to work. Women
can work in conditions of war, when help for the army is needed,
carry on agitation in its midst. Women must engage actively in this
work so that the Red Army can see that it is being looked after.
32
Women can also work in provisioning – in distribution of food and
improvement of mass feeding, in developing dining rooms, which
are so successfully set up in Petrograd.
In such fields the activity of working women will acquire true
organizational importance. The participation of women is necessary
also in the establishment of large experimental economies in order
to see to it that such an undertaking should not remain isolated.
Without the participation of a large number of working women, no
such undertaking is possible. The working women can approach it
in the form of supervising the distribution of products and also of
facilitating their delivery. This task is quite suitable for non-party
working women and the carrying out of this task would help in
strengthening Socialist society.
Having abolished private ownership in land and having almost
abolished it in shops and factories, the Soviet power aims that all
toilers, not only Party members, but also non-party elements, not
only men, but also women, take part in economic construction. This
work started by the Soviet power can be pushed ahead only when
instead of hundreds of women in Russia millions upon millions of
women will take a hand in it. Then the success of the cause of Socialist construction, we are certain, will be assured. Then the toiling
masses will be able to prove that they can live and be masters without landlords and capitalists. Then will socialist construction in
Russia stand so firm that the Soviet Republic need not fear the hostile forces in other countries and within Russia.
33